|
October 14, 2004
Turning little lambs into happy meals!
Justin supplied me with a link to a marvelous Letter to the Editor which I liked so much that I thought I would share it here. In an opinion titled Say no to war toys, one Mary Rudge attacks the climate of guns 'n' burgers, and maintains that Happy Meals aren't happy at all! McDonald’s needs to know that there are people in the community who do not think it is appropriate to associate happiness with weapons, killing, destruction, warriors, fighters, world domination and other violence such as the toys currently given to boys as a Happy Meal and as the Happy Meal boxes depict .Justin wonders whether the author has ever seen the looks of avid glee on little boys' faces when they see a gun. I suspect she has, and that's why she's so irritated. McDonald's is simply giving young customers what they want, and is hardly to blame for the fact that testosterone makes little boys want to play with guns. While I am sure that many agree with her, it strikes me as unreasonable to force McDonald's to engage in social engineering against the wishes of their youngest customers. From time immemorial, boys have played war games with war toys. People who live in a world as they imagine it should be are doomed to disappointment when events like 9/11 take place. Shrill demands that others live according to the standards of an imaginary world of "peace" end up creating wars, for they forget two important lessons of history: They might as well demand the end of gravity. posted by Eric on 10.14.04 at 05:48 PM
Comments
That's the mentality I loathe. This is Political Correctness run amok. They not only want to strip us of our weapons, but even to outlaw any _thoughts_ about weapons, force, or violence. They would reduce us to a race of sheep. Their Utopia would be Hell, except that the Hell portrayed in Christian literature is not nearly so boring. As G. K. Chesterton once pointed out, the only way to end all fighting is to abolish everything worth fighting for. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · October 14, 2004 11:21 PM From the letter: Hello Kitty--now there's an image that could incite violence. Leastwise, whenever I see yet another one plastered on a bookbag, coffee mug, or credit card ad, it makes me want to go on a shooting spree. Sean Kinsell · October 15, 2004 12:53 AM Gotta wonder about people who look to McDonald's for leadership. . . Persnickety · October 15, 2004 12:54 AM Come on, Steven ... who wants what you are talking about? Who is this "they?" bink · October 15, 2004 10:50 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Oddly enough I just featured 'si vis pacem para bellum' in a post at the Campus. I had just seen the Punisher (Thomas Jane and John Travolta) in which it was improperly spoken (sic vis pacem para bellum).
Incidently, the translation in your previous post is odd ('In time of peace prepare for war').
Literally it's 'if you want peace, prepare for war.' But there's something interesting here. The translation would seem to mean 'be ready in case of war' whereas the Latin seems really to say 'prepare war,' 'contrive a war.' The verb properly takes an accusative of purpose or goal which would imply not something to guard against but something to actively prepare.
The original quote used a form of praeparo which does mean 'to make preparations for.'
Either way I think the sentiment is stronger than many a modern ear would be comfortable with (unfortunately). The notion is that peace is only possible for a people always ready to fight.
I suspect that's your reading too.